UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus ARULMOZHI -INIARASU & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 1 
.-\ 
UNION OF !NOIA & ANR. 
A 
.. v._ .·.: .. 
. 
. 
. 
ARULMOZHI -INIARASlJ & ORS.· · 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4990-4991 of 2011) 
' 
JULY 06, 2011 
B 
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Service Law - Recruitment - Part time contingent casual 
labourers - On purely temporary basis - Engaged as required 
on basis of need for which paid on hourly basis - Applications c 
-
invited for post of Sepoy in the Department prescribing certain 
age limit - Casual labourers not allowed to participate in the 
j 
' 
selection process - Application before the Tribunal - Direction 
issued by the Tribunal to the Department to consider the case 
of the labourers by relaxing the age limit prescribed - Said D 
order challenged - High Court modified the order of the 
Tribunal with regard to relaxation in the age limit with a 
condition that it would be applicable to the actual erstwhile 
employees of the Department -
On appeal, held: 
Engagement of employees as casual labourers even for E 
considerable long duration did not confer any legal right on 
them for seeking a mandamus for relaxation of age limit -
Also terms of letter of appointment in unambiguous terms 
stated that appointments were temporary and would not confer 
any right to claim any permanent post in the department -
F 
Only because some similarly situated persons have been 
appointed/absorbed as Sepoys, same cannot be directed to 
be carried out - Thus, order of the High Court is set aside. 
Constitution of India, 1950: · . 
./ 
G 
Article 141 - Precedent - Reliance on - Principles to be 
followed - Held: While applying precedents the Court should 
not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how 
the fact situation of the case before it fits in with the fact 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A situation of the decision on which reliance is placed -
Observations of courts .are neither to be read as Euclid's 
theorems nor as provisions of Statute and that too taken out 
of their context - These observations must be read in the 
context in which they appear to have been stated - Disposal 
B of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not 
proper because one additional or different fact may make a 
world of difference between conclusions in two cases. 
Article 226 - Writ of mandamus - Issuance of - Held: 
Writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court only when 
C there exists a legal right in the writ petitiorter and 
corresponding legal obligation in the State - Only because 
an illegality has been committed, the same cannot be 
directed to be perpetuated - There cannot be equality in 
illegality - On facts, it cannot be said that the action of the 
D appellants is highly discriminatory in as much as some 
similarly situated persons have been appointed/absorbed as 
Sepoys. 
Administrative law - Doctrine of legitimate expectation -
E Applicability of - Plea of employees (part time contingent 
casual labourers) for permanent absorption/regularisation in 
the Department on account of their alleged uninterrupted 
engagement for long durations ranging between 8-14 years 
- Held: Doctrine of legitimate expectation is not applicable -
F Letter of appointment was to the effect that the appointments 
were temporary and would not confer any right to claim any 
permanent post in the department - Also no promise was 
made to the employees that they would be absorbed as 
regular employees of the Department. 
G 
Respondents were engaged as part-time contingent 
casual labourers, purely on temporary basis in the Excise 
Department. They were engaged on basis of the need of 
the office for which they were paid on hourly basis. In the 
year 1999, most of the respondents were in continuous 
H employment for a period ranging from 8 to 14 years. In 
' ' 
, 
l 
\ 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. ARULMOZHI INIARASU & 
3 
. ORS. 
the year 2005, the appellants dispensed with the services A 
of all such casual labourers. The respondents filed an 
application before the Tribunal seeking regularisation of 
their services. and the same was dismissed. The 
respondents filed a writ petition. The High Court directed 
the appellants to consider the matter afresh in light of the 
B 
circulars issued by the Department. The Excise 
Department found that the respondents were not eligible 
for regularization of their services as they did not satisfy 
the criteria laid down in the case of * Umadevi (3) and . 
Office Memorandum. Thereafter, the Excise Department c 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.